What methods of moral reasoning are used in Twelve Angry Men?

Moral reasoning is a process of trying to determine the difference between right and wrong. The particular methods are hard to define and the topic is much disputed—for example, should moral reasoning follow logic or gut feeling? How much is it influenced by society, upbringing, personal values, and so on?

In the movie 12 Angry Men, moral reasoning is a key point of drama as twelve jury members try to deliberate a case of a young boy accused of killing his father. The stakes are dire - if found guilty, the boy faces a death penalty. The jury is tasked with coming to a unanimous decision, but urged to rule "not guilty" if there is reasonable doubt.

To provide an example of how moral reasoning can be shown, I'll use Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development in six stages. The stages are generally seen as linear—that is, the first is most often seen in children, and as a person ages, they should move closer to the sixth. However, as with every theory, that is the generalized model. Even so, it is worth considering how the level of maturity is linked to the stage a juror's argument falls into.

• Stage I (Obedience/Punishment) — Juror 12

In this stage, the moral judgment is less based on reasoning and more on fear of punishment. There exists a set of rules, and a person tries to follow them blindly, expecting to be either rewarded or punished according to their behavior with no inner criticism. Juror 12 is the most fickle of all jurors, changing his vote three times with barely any opinion of his own. He is an example of going by the mood in the room, being mostly concerned by coming off on the "right" side of the argument according to the jury room and less on the right side of the trial. Juror 12 merely obeys, fearing being left out of the changing tides.

• Stage II (Self-Interest) — Juror 7

This is the stage of individualism. A person's moral judgment revolves around themselves, and they act according to what is best for them individually. All throughout the movie, Juror 7 is more concerned with his tickets to a Yankees game than he is with the trial. His moral reasoning is based on his personal need to come to a hasty decision. Even when he finally changes his vote, it is because he sees the jury room shifting and makes the decision that, in his mind, allows him to get to his game faster.

• Stage III (Conformity) — Juror 11

At this stage, a person's moral reasoning is based on interpersonal relations and being "right" according to the standards of the society they live in. It's also called the "good girl/boy" stage, where a person wants to be thought of as good. Juror 11 is an immigrant—he makes a point of being polite, and it's clear that it's important to him to be accepted. He changes his vote early in the movie, agreeing to the reasonable doubt. It's a point of motivation for Juror 11 to follow the example of those whom he views as his peers and to try and be merciful like them.

• Stage IV (Authority and Order) — Juror 4

On the surface, Stage IV reasoning is very similar to the first stage. It's all about following the rules, but less blindly. At this stage, a person believes that a society is kept together by laws and that those laws aren't made just to be there; they are there to protect—for a reason. Juror 4 is one of the last to change his vote, stating that an eyewitness is the proof that stands despite all the doubt. After all, there can be no doubt a person has died, and Juror 4 is reluctant to let the issue go easily, given that reasonable doubt works both ways. In that sense, he takes the juror's duty very seriously.

• Stage V (Social Contract) — Juror 8

At this stage, a person starts to question both the morality of others and the nature of rules in a society. It becomes more important to follow a "true" good rather than a set of rules that may be outdated or not in everyone's favor. With it, there is also an understanding that other people's morals may not be the same as your own. Juror 8 serves as the main protagonist of the movie because he is the first (and at the time, only) to vote not guilty. While everyone else focuses on the trial being clear-cut, Juror 8 wants to discuss the matter—not so much because he thinks the boy is innocent, but because it is important to him that the jury take time to weigh such a harsh decision. Throughout the movie, he shows that he understands not only the details of the case, but also the arguments of the men he doesn't agree with. That level of empathy, even towards the villainous Juror 3, shows a much deeper level of moral reasoning than most of the others possess. It's important to him that no matter what judgment the jury comes to, it does so logically, not out of spite or personal bias.

• Stage VI (Universal Principles) — None

The last stage is the point where a person develops their own moral principles and follows them regardless of the law. A person would defend equality and human rights at whatever cost, no matter the consequences. The movie doesn't offer up a good example of this, mostly because the situation doesn't call for it. Kohlberg himself believed that few people reach this stage.

The first type of moral reasoning introduced is a need to be responsible. This is voiced by Henry Fonda's character, but also the jury foreman (and some of those who vote guilty early on). All those characters are doing what they think they must.

Closely related is the sense of duty to the community. Though duty seems weak in the juror with the tickets to the baseball game and the advertising man, all feel duty sufficiently to play their roles in the system.

Faith in the system is a kind of moral reasoning, and it is articulated by both Fonda and by the angriest of those claiming guilt for the accused. Fonda's character thinks that they should spend full time as the system intended uncovering guilt or innocence; the angry jurors trust that the system has worked as it should.

Fairness is called for, a kind of moral reasoning, but also circumstantial reasoning and situational ethics, when various men try to discuss how his origins would affect the accused.

What are three levels of moral development in Twelve Angry Men?

In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, 12 men debate the evidence the prosecution has presented in a case against a young defendant. Over the course of their deliberation, most have their eyes opened to nuances and weight the evidence and ultimately change their votes in favor of reasonable doubt. With these transitions, there are several levels of moral development exhibited. For instance, perhaps the simplest example is juror No.7, who originally voted to convict the defendant primarily because he did not want to take the time to discuss the evidence. He had tickets to see a show and wanted to finish the deliberation. He ultimately changes his vote to not guilty. Whether he does this because he truly has been convinced about reasonable doubt or because he wants to vote with the majority is not completely clear. Nevertheless, he says that he has come to beehive that the defendant is innocent.

Then, juror No. 5 exhibits a different level of moral development. He votes guilty originally. He does not seem to have a personal motivation behind his guilty vote. He believes the testimony. However, over the course of the deliberation, he realizes that the testimony is not as crystal clear as he initially believed and he changes his vote to not guilty.

Finally, juror No. 10 exhibits an even different level of moral development. He enters the jury room with a bias against the defendant because of the defendant’s ethnic background. In other words, he is prejudiced and therefore easily believes the defendant capable of the murder. He is even described as a “bigot” in the notes to the play. Yet, he becomes convinced that there is reasonable doubt over the course of the deliberation.